Kant

Allow me simulate your strategy by repeating myself in lieu of offering a counter argument. You can’t make something true by repeating it again and again – although you can make people believe things by that means.

I’m afraid we may have reached the end of this line of inquiry. At this point, we can only entreat one another to reconsider our views on the empirical quality of space and time and/or the limits of empirical knowledge. I am confident enough in my views on those matters to rest my case on them.

“in lieu of offering a counter argument…” In a dispute, this is called an admission of defeat! I actually didn’t repeat myself over and over again. This is actually more of a description of your own stile of reasoning. Finally, you resort to chest thumping. But, this is what you’ve done all along! So long!

Oh, I do appreciate the power of empirical inquiry. I am a scientist. But, I also know about the limits of empirical inquiry. If you don’t like hearing this from Kant, then why don’t you read Popper. He will tell you the same and he’s regarded as a British empirical analytic philosopher. So you may be more inclined to believe him than me.

You should be embarrassed to be advancing this nationalistic tact. It is telling that you seem to accept or reject ideas based on the nominal affiliation of the person advancing it. In America, we more often make this error along the lines of race than we do along the lines of nationality. It is an ugly abhorrition of reason either way. Shame on you, sir.

It’s worth noting that the shame you have incurred can be shared with your Countrymen and mine equally based on their affiliation with this debasing ideology - not their Country of origin. The same can be said about agreeing or disagreeing with Kant. Perhaps you find a national timbre to arguments everywhere you go, because you never fail to bring it along with you.

Oh, I do appreciate the power of empirical inquiry. I am a scientist. But, I also know about the limits of empirical inquiry. If you don’t like hearing this from Kant, then why don’t you read Popper. He will tell you the same and he’s regarded as a British empirical analytic philosopher. So you may be more inclined to believe him than me.

You should be embarrassed to be advancing this nationalistic tact. It is telling that you seem to accept or reject ideas based on the nominal affiliation of the person advancing it. In America, we more often make this error along the lines of race than we do along the lines of nationality. It is an ugly abhorrition of reason either way. Shame on you, sir.

It’s worth noting that the shame you have incurred can be shared with your Countrymen and mine equally based on their affiliation with this debasing ideology - not their Country of origin. The same can be said about agreeing or disagreeing with Kant. Perhaps you find a national timbre to arguments everywhere you go, because you never fail to bring it along with you.

I am not embarrassed at all. This is my experience and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were an actual description of you. But, I don’t know that yet and I would have to drink a pint or two with you to find out. You are not merely disagreeing with Kant, you are disagreeing without any knowledge of his philosophy, with no arguments in support of your own idea and additionally launching vicious and irrational attacks on him. What is the origin of these strange distorted ideas about Kant? -Well it comes from English and American campuses and it is fueled by nationalism. I stand by that!

This is my experience and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were an actual description of you. But, I don’t know that yet and I would have to drink a pint or two with you to find out.

You have a Budweiser, I’ll have a Heineken. We’ll both be drinking crappy beer. The line I most often hear from racists is “everyone is racist.” Even if it were true, that would not make the position morally defensible. This is even more true if you subscribe to Kant, though I still don’t recommend it.

Sartre, I believe, would fall in with the continental philosophers you prefer. He is more respectful than Rand for sure, but his criticisms of Kant are biting. The difference isn’t in their national affiliation, it is in their disposition to civility generally. Sartre never fails to sound more polite than Rand irrespective of the idea under criticism, or the nationality of it’s original author. Incidentally, I reviewed Rand’s complaints with Kant and found I better understand the reflexive disposition you take in his defense given that you have said you’ve defended him to Randians in the past. She doesn’t criticize him so much as hurl invectives at him. One can’t fault her on the point of consistency.

I object to your statements that I don’t understand Kant. I think you weaken your defense of him by leveling that charge against me. I agree that many of his critics do not, but understanding him is not synonymous with agreeing with him. My attacks cut directly to the foundation of his fundamental beginning proof. Whether they succeed, as we have seen, depends on which of us is correct on the issue of whether science has proven that space and time are empirical phenomena. I am extremely pleased that our discussion has been sufficiently fruitful for us to have gotten to the root of our disagreement, and I’ll thank you not to belittle our dialogue by attacking me on my mastery of the subject matter or my presumed penchant for disliking the whole of the European peninsula. Quite the contrary, I was enamored with Existentialism for years and my rejection of that school was my last - I no longer look for wisdom in philosophy.

Now, I have rested my argument of the nature of space and time based on my understanding of the writings of Lawrence Krauss and Brian Greene. My mastery of physics is a point at which I am fully exposed to the criticism of not understanding the subject. However, if I do understand them correctly then I believe I have carried this debate. I hope you’ll do me the courtesy of investigating this claim at some point. I will likewise investigate Popper in that spirit.

We know for sure that Newton was wrong, so Newtonian physics is eternally dead, but we don’t know for sure that Einstein is right.

I abandoned defending the physical gounds of my argument on a lack of expertise, but feel the need to go back now and correct this statement. Newton was not wrong, his description was simply incomplete. The beauty of Einstein is in how well his two great ideas fit with Newton but allowed us to go further and understand why those principals break down under certain extreme conditions.

Newtonian physics is not dead. That is still the math that scientists use to launch rockets and deploy exploratory satalites. It is how we landed the rover on Mars. Force is still equal to mass times acceleration. If we are ever able to be more precise than that, it won’t mean Newton was wrong, only that we will then have the ability to make a more precise statement. The eternal nature of the truth to which we are refering in these equations, will remain empirical facts for all time and are not given to us a priori - we only learn about them through empirical observations.

.. Newton was not wrong, his description was simply incomplete. The beauty of Einstein is in how well his two great ideas fit with Newton but allowed us to go further and understand why those principals break down under certain extreme conditions.

Newtonian physics is not dead. ...

No, Newton’s description is simply inaccurate. If Einstein is right then Newton is wrong. Newton’s physics is a good approximation of Einstein for low relative speeds v<<c. Newtonian physics does still have practical uses as an adequate description in the realms of v<<c, however from an epistemological point of view, Newton is dead as dead as a doornail.

This is my experience and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were an actual description of you. But, I don’t know that yet and I would have to drink a pint or two with you to find out.

You have a Budweiser, I’ll have a Heineken. We’ll both be drinking crappy beer. The line I most often hear from racists is “everyone is racist.” Even if it were true, that would not make the position morally defensible. This is even more true if you subscribe to Kant, though I still don’t recommend it.

Be assured, I wouldn’t offer any crappy beer to you.

“everyone is racist.” Well, you haven’t heard that point of view from me. So I wonder why you bring it up?!

...
Sartre, I believe, would fall in with the continental philosophers you prefer.

I don not base my judgement of philosophers on the basis of their nationality or country of origin. I don’t employ the term “continental philosopher” and neither would Sartre refer to himself as a “continental philosopher”. No “continental philosopher” would call himself “continental philosopher”. This kind of nationalistic thinking emanates primarily from British and American philosophy departments.

TheCoolinator - 07 September 2012 11:33 PM

“I object to your statements that I don’t understand Kant….

You may object, but your previous statements about Kant actually prove me right. You had no sound understanding of Kantian philosophy. Now, this may have changed in the meantime. Let’s see.

TheCoolinator - 07 September 2012 11:33 PM

I agree that many of his critics do not, but understanding him is not synonymous with agreeing with him.

I don’t agree with everything Kant says. Hardly anybody does. But, I do get frustrated with the perpetual lies that are being spread about Kant primarily in American and British philosophy departments about Kant’s philosophy.

So how did Einstein prove that space and time are empirical phenomena? Is his theory about space and time a theory about “the thing in itself” or is it a theory about how space and time appear to us?

If you get to the bottom of these two questions, you will probably understand that Einstein’s theory does nothing to refute Kant’s theory about the a priory nature of space and time.

...
Sartre, I believe, would fall in with the continental philosophers you prefer.

I don not base my judgement of philosophers on the basis of their nationality or country of origin. I don’t employ the term “continental philosopher” and neither would Sartre refer to himself as a “continental philosopher”. No “continental philosopher” would call himself “continental philosopher”. This kind of nationalistic thinking emanates primarily from British and American philosophy departments.

TheCoolinator - 07 September 2012 11:33 PM

“I object to your statements that I don’t understand Kant….

You may object, but your previous statements about Kant actually prove me right. You had no sound understanding of Kantian philosophy. Now, this may have changed in the meantime. Let’s see.

TheCoolinator - 07 September 2012 11:33 PM

I agree that many of his critics do not, but understanding him is not synonymous with agreeing with him.

I don’t agree with everything Kant says. Hardly anybody does. But, I do get frustrated with the perpetual lies that are being spread about Kant primarily in American and British philosophy departments about Kant’s philosophy.

So how did Einstein prove that space and time are empirical phenomena? Is his theory about space and time a theory about “the thing in itself” or is it a theory about how space and time appear to us?

If you get to the bottom of these two questions, you will probably understand that Einstein’s theory does nothing to refute Kant’s theory about the a priory nature of space and time.

Regards

Kikl

Only a conceptual mind would think that it could understand the nature of anything.
It is trying to view the stars with a microscope.

“everyone is racist.” Well, you haven’t heard that point of view from me. So I wonder why you bring it up?!

My apologies; given your statements on the topic, it hadn’t occurred to me that you may not view yourself as a nationalist. I don’t want to argue this point, so I will simply concede that that is a problem unique to the ‘Angelo/American’ population set and congratulate you on your diligence in standing up to the unwarranted overgeneralizations of those types of people.

kikl - 10 September 2012 03:28 AM

TheCoolinator - 07 September 2012 11:33 PM

“I object to your statements that I don’t understand Kant….

You may object, but your previous statements about Kant actually prove me right. You had no sound understanding of Kantian philosophy.

Let’s be a little more concrete about our approach, shall we? Allow me to encapsulate my understanding of Kant:

1)a priori knowledge exists as we can deduce from the notion that space and time cannot be understood empirically.
2)space and time are the sole and sufficient proof from which we can confidently infer the existence of a priori knowledge.
3)a priori knowledge is superior to empirical knowledge.
4)the reason for this superiority: a priori comes sequentially before empirical knowledge and therefore is more fundamental to truth.
5)all of Kant’s subsequent (and admittedly often beautiful) arguments rely upon the foundation described in the previous four points.

Now, please educate me on precisely where I have misrepresented or misunderstood Kant in the above statements. Failing that, if I have made some statement about Kant which is inconsistent with the above statements, please inform me so that I may admit the fault.

Here, I’ll give you an example of how it is done:

kikl - 10 September 2012 03:13 AM

If Einstein is right then Newton is wrong.

This is a concrete example of a statement you have made which serves as evidence that you don’t have a proper understanding of physics, to wit:

“Newton’s laws must be modified if objects are moving at velocities near the speed of light. Yet we still consider Newton’s laws to be laws (emphasis mine) because they hold, at least to a very good approximation, for the conditions of the everyday world, in which the speeds we encounter are far below the speed of light.”

“1)a priori knowledge exists as we can deduce from the notion that space and time cannot be understood empirically.”

Wrong. A priory knowledge is knowledge that is not derived from experience.

“2) space and time are the sole and sufficient proof from which we can confidently infer the existence of a priori knowledge.”

Wrong. A priori knowledge is not inferred from space and time. Space and time are examples of a priory knowledge. But, they are not the only examples. The categories of the mind also represent a priori knowledge. If you had done any reading on Kant, you would know this.

“3) a priori knowledge is superior to empirical knowledge.”

Wrong, I have explained this previously.

“it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion).”

Both a priory concepts and sensory impressions form a compound; this compound is empirical knowledge.

“4)the reason for this superiority: a priori comes sequentially before empirical knowledge and therefore is more fundamental to truth.”

Wrong

“5)all of Kant’s subsequent (and admittedly often beautiful) arguments rely upon the foundation described in the previous four points.”

Wrong.

“Now, please educate me on precisely where I have misrepresented or misunderstood Kant in the above statements. Failing that, if I have made some statement about Kant which is inconsistent with the above statements, please inform me so that I may admit the fault.”

Since every single statement is clearly wrong, you must do some reading. You can start out by reading the Wikipedia article about the critique of pure reason:

This is a concrete example of a statement you have made which serves as evidence that you don’t have a proper understanding of physics, to wit:

“Newton’s laws must be modified if objects are moving at velocities near the speed of light. Yet we still consider Newton’s laws to be laws (emphasis mine) because they hold, at least to a very good approximation, for the conditions of the everyday world, in which the speeds we encounter are far below the speed of light.”

This shows that you do not understand Stephen Hawking. He is saying the exact same thing that I did: Newton’s physics is a good approximation if v<<c. However, an approximation cannot claim to be the truth, because it necessarily contains error. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an approximation.

Both theories make predictions about the movement of particles, which contradict each other. For example, Newtonian physics - including Galileo’s transformation - allows objects to move with any conceivable speed v; Einstein’s theory introduces an upper limit to the speeds of particles, namely the speed of light c in vacuum. Both cannot be true. This is a basic axiom of logic: A statement cannot be true and false at the same time. The statements: The speed of particles has no upper limit (Newton) and the speed of particles has an upper limit (Einstein); namely c, cannot both be true. Consequently, if Einstein’s theory is correct, then Newton’s theory is wrong.

Why does this name still generate respect when it is invoked? Why would the author of such unadulterated drivel still be informing some the greatest moral thinkers of our age? One need not read past book one of his Critique to read a full admission that all of his ideas are bogus. He first attempts to prove the existence of a priori knowledge via the human perceptions of space and time. He offers no further proof, being satisfied to rest upon that. He then postulates without attempting to offer proof that a priori supersedes empirical knowledge. Finally, he states that if you haven’t followed him this far you may disregard all that follows and throws in a dig that the only reason you could have for not having followed him is a lack of intellectual capacity.

The problem he has, it that we now know that space and time are actually different dimensions of the same empirical phenomenon and we have studied them empirically with fruitful results. Yet here we stand in the year 2012, and people still pay lip service to a philosophy that had its foundation shattered by Einstein over a century ago.

Kant is irrelevant. He is sophistry founded upon a bad guess and we can never profit an iota by considering a problem through the lens he proposed. I keep my copy of the Critique of Pure Reason in my gym bag where it serves as a spacer between my shoes and the end of the bag to prevent contents from shifting. So long as I never lack for cooking fuel, this the highest use I will ever derive from my ownership of those pages.

It should be ovious that you didnt read the book or read it badly. Just one example: You state that Kant tries to prove the existence of a priori knoledge via human perceptions of space and time. If you had read the book you would know that there is a distinction to be made between analytic and synthetic judgements a priori. Proving the existence of analytic a priori knowledge is easy: “bachelors are not married” is an example. This is not interesting though, since the sentence doesnt produce anything new. A synthetic judgement would be: “The bachelor is 23 years old” , since it produces new knowledge. So the first question Kant poses is: “are synthetic judgements a priori possible? - btw, do you even know what a priori means? He than argues that every judgement in mathematics is an example of said synthetic judgements a priori, for example th claim: “no number is that large, that you cannot add one to it” is such a thing.
But this is all not really important, since you apparently dont have time to read because you spent your precious time flaming about great thinkers in online forums. So if you want a simple answer to why you should respect Kant i have one:

Kants main accomplishment is that he made the distinction between our perception of the thing - which we will call Phaenomenon- and the thing itselve which we will call numenon. The notion that we are never able to see the thing itself “as it truely is” but always create or construct an “imagination” that is informed by the physical world while not truely identical with it is one of the most important ideas in modern philosophy and psychology. Of course you will not agree anyways which is why i will not bother to try to prove it to you. You may watch this video if you want something which might help you understand why the thing i said above is true - but this would take time you really need for flaming. http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=j8V6Au2KUOM

Just to add my two penn’orth, the greatness of a philosopher or of a physicist isn’t measured by his or her absolute correctness on every point. Long ago, when I was a philosophy undergraduate, I had to study Spinoza as an individual assignment. I wrestled with him for months and couldn’t get past how annoyed I was with his first couple of pages: how could he claim to demonstrate ethics in a Euclidean manner, each theorem depending on previous theorems, when there were such dubious assumptions up front? Well, I was wrong. I still don’t agree with his assumptions or conclusions, but I know now that even Euclid’s postulates were in fact open to challenge; and I know now that some of the ideas I found most unacceptable were actually quite profound insights beyond my juvenile capacity.

Meanwhile, concerning some of the detailed arguments in his thread, I would note that

a) Einstein and Newton are incompatible - Newton believed bodies exerted forces at a distance, while Eistein believed they curved space-time itself. It seems likely that a quantum theory of gravity will supersede both.

b) Time is real. All experience or introspection proceeds serially (this may well be true a priori - how can there be a process without a sequence?) Einstein certainly proved that for two observers the order of evnts A and B may be different. But he did not prove that each observer doesn’t have an order - in fact he needs it to be so. Kant is not - on this point - incompatible with Einstein. Of course the CONTENTS of my sequence are different from the contents of yours, and not only in their order; but that is explained by the difference in the chain from the events to our awareness of the events, not to some internal problem with consciousness.

...
Kants main accomplishment is that he made the distinction between our perception of the thing - which we will call Phaenomenon- and the thing itselve which we will call numenon. The notion that we are never able to see the thing itself “as it truely is” but always create or construct an “imagination” that is informed by the physical world while not truely identical with it is one of the most important ideas in modern philosophy and psychology. Of course you will not agree anyways which is why i will not bother to try to prove it to you. You may watch this video if you want something which might help you understand why the thing i said above is true - but this would take time you really need for flaming. http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=j8V6Au2KUOM

Dr. Harris has pointed out the high cost of wasting one’s time on badly written accounts of ill-thought-out-ideas. Given the impressive amount of quality material being produced in the modern age, every book read could be thought of as dozens of books not read. This fully justifies my decision to discontinue reading past book 1 of the Critique. It is such a sloppy example of logic, it should be taught in philosophy courses only for the purposes of demonstrating how embarrassing it can be to found ones ideas on weakly supported premises.

I don’t deny Kant’s historical importance, particularly with respect to his founding roll in the idealism school. However, Sartre (with all his warts) adequately pointed out the reasons idealism ultimately fails seventy years ago. The pity is that he spends such a considerable portion of his Magnus Opus refuting an ideology which can justly be dismissed out of hand. It is a black eye for the whole of philosophy that so much ink has been spilled wrestling with such obvious sophistry.

Respecting Kant for constituting idealism is a bit like respecting L. Ron Hubbard for constituting Scientology. I decline.